full-disclosure - Administrivia (very OT, but should be addressed)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <405B22CA.8050505@onryou.com>
From: lists2 at onryou.com (Cael Abal)
Subject: Administrivia (very OT, but should be addressed)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Spiro Trikaliotis wrote:
> Isn't that the reason why there is a Mail-Followup-To (MFT) header
> (http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html)? With this, the sender of a mail
> can decide if he wants a copy of the mail or not.
>
> If I want to get a copy of the mail in addition to the list, the
> header is set to the list and my address, if I don't want this, I set
> it to the list only.
>
> Mutt, my MUA, supports the notion of lists and subscribed list. On a
> non-subscribed list, I get a copy of any reply by setting MFT to
> myself, too, while I don't get a copy on subscribed lists.
>
> Why don't you all just let the user choose which way he wants to go?

[This is way off-topic, but I'm afraid that folks will get the wrong
impression from Spiro's e-mail.]

Hi Spiro,

Unfortunately, last I checked there *isn't* a Mail-Followup-To header.
Even though some mail clients support it, it's nonstandard and some
folks consider it an ugly kludge.

See Keith Moore's plea here:

http://pm-doc.sourceforge.net/pm-tips-body.html#replyto_header

He suggests that adding another mail header will only complicate matters
more, and that Bernstein's MFT concept is inherently broken:

"Dan's proposal is intrinsically flawed. It incorrectly assumes that the
sender can reasonably anticipate the recipient's needs in replying to
the message, and that such needs can reasonably be lumped into either
"reply" or "followup". It doesn't solve the real problem, which is that
responders need to think about where their replies go. Mail-Followup-To
won't decrease the number of messages that go to the wrong place."

Please give it a read before you continue to advocate MFT.

Sincerely,

Cael
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFAWyLKR2vQ2HfQHfsRApwqAKCloX20ztxmfbjuwave1bKVLovdXQCgiXrS
LVcPloe0HSGraeewnMLO74s=
=zxKs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----